I cover science and public policy, environmental sustainability, media ideology, NGO advocacy and corporate responsibility. I'm executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project (www.GeneticLiteracyProject.org), an independent NGO, and Senior Fellow at the World Food Center's Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy at the University of California-Davis. I've edited/authored seven books on genetics, chemicals, risk assessment and sustainability, and my favorite, on why I never graduated from college football player (place kicker) to pro athlete: "Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It". Previously, I was a producer and executive for 20 yeas at ABC News and NBC News. Motto: Follow the facts, not the ideology. Play hard. Love dogs.

A Tour Of The Brain Of An Anti-Crop Biotech Activist

The Genetic Literacy Project takes you into the mind of the world’s most notorious anti-biotech scientist…and it’s not a pretty picture.

In one of the weirdest scenes in Being John Malkovich, the endearingly offbeat 1999 comedy-fantasy that takes us into mind of actor John Malkovich playing a fictional version of himself, Malkovich’s doppelgänger enters his own subconscious and is placed in a world where everyone looks like him and can only say “Malkovich.”

This scene is equally disconcerting and compelling because it provides a metaphor for being trapped in your own narrow view of the world—it’s just you, you, you.

This is what appears to be going on with anti-crop biotechnology campaigners. All they can see and hear are their own slogans and conspiracy theories—it’s just Frankenfood, Frankenfood, Frankenfood.

The June 4th Washington, DC crop biotech forum—which you can view in full on the Genetic Literacy Project website—was supposed to have been a debate featuring two of the world’s most prominent anti-biotech activists—Gilles-Eric Seralini, a French scientist, and Jeffrey Smith, who runs the Institute for Responsible Technology, an anti-biotech NGO. Both ran tail, apparently when they realized this event would require more than talking to themselves—they’d actually have to engage with mainstream science. Malkovich, at least, walked the edge of self-mockery and is shamed by his subconscious self-centeredness. That’s not the case with Seralini and Smith.

As I began assembling this event, two leading anti-biotechnology groups—the Center for Food Safety and the Union of Concerned Scientists—turned down my invitation. I don’t believe the “experts” at either organization represent mainstream scientific thinking—but they are the best the Antis have. Disgracefully, they would not engage in open dialogue.

As I’ve written before, in controversies you don’t get to choose your opponents—the public does that for you. That’s what led me to Smith and Seralini. Smith, while not a scientist—he is a former yogic instructor and political candidate—has written two best-selling self-published books and produced a documentary narrated by the wife of Dr. Mehmet Oz, whose show he has appeared on numerous times. Whatever his credentials, he’s a favorite of Hollywood, and one of the most quoted anti-biotech crusaders in the world.

To facilitate dialogue, Smith and I agreed to invite professor Seralini, whose paper released last fall claiming that rats fed genetically modified corn developed cancerous tumors turned him into a global celebrity. The paper was crudely ideological and roundly rejected by established scientists and every major science and science journalism organization of note, particularly experts in Europe where the public remains very leery of biotechnology. Seralini knows this: he has denied every request to share his data with independent researchers. That’s why I was surprised when he agreed to participate… but not surprised when he, along with Smith, backed out once I recruited Kevin Folta, Interim Chair of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida, to join the debate.

After they pulled out, Kevin and I retooled the debate into a forum and recruited Karl Haro von Mogel, University of Wisconsin plant breeding and plant genetics PhD candidate, plant biotechnologist, and cofounder of the Biofortified website.

Reason, religion and food security

It’s tempting to characterize this dispute as a battle between science and ideology, but that would be simplistic. Issues of risk, notions of “Nature” and “natural”—these are emotional, even religious beliefs. How we view food is deeply personal. Science can only take us so far—but it’s pretty far.

We all can appreciate why any debate over farming, food and modern technology tends toward contentious. After all, we are talking about our children and our health. The one thing we can agree on is that everyone, on all sides of this discussion, wants abundant, highly nutritious food produced with the least environmental damage.

We decided to focus the forum on global food security. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, 868 million people are undernourished. Food security has improved in recent decades, as the undernourishment rate dropped from 18.6% in 1990-1992 to 12.5%. But over the same period, population grew from 5.4 to 7.0 billion—and it’s on track to grow to 9 million over the next two to three decades. As Bill Gates once said, “The world is getting better, but it’s not getting better fast enough, and it’s not getting better for everyone.”

Global food security is a complex challenge. Agriculturally rich regions like North America, Argentina and Brazil must produce enough to make up for production deficits in Asia, Africa and even Europe. We will need 70-100% more food by 2050 to match population and prosperity growth, and it must occur in the face of more frequent extreme weather events marked by floods, droughts and heat waves.

One thing we know is that technology—including biotechnology—must play a central role, just as it did in the Green Revolution. Beginning in the late 1940s, genetic research led to the breeding of high-yield grains. Combined with the use of new fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, output soared. Since 1950, world wheat production alone has increased by more than 300%.

That said, the environmental consequences of high-yield industrial scale farming are daunting. Organic farming can play a role, but it’s at best a marginal part of the solution. Although no one believes it’s a silver bullet, the overwhelming consensus of the science and farming communities is that genetic engineering can and will be part of farmers suite of tools for addressing increasing food needs while mitigating environmental damage.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

One point I’ve made on Twitter and elsewhere is that folks can still be pissed off at Monsanto for their sales practices (or the history of the companies that now comprise the current conglomerate), without rejecting the overwhelming scientific body of evidence that GMO foods are safe and provide far-reaching benefits for an anthropogenically-stressed planet. The problem, as you allude to, is that many folks have difficulty separating their emotions from logic on some issues.

Good point David, re: Monsanto. I actually believe strongly that in the ag sector, they are a very sustainably focused company…best in sector along a number of metrics, and of course have the best biotech research department in the world. But ah, yes, they were a defense contractor during Vietnam…

Wow, David, what body of evidence says that GMO’s are safe? Care to back that statement with some actual studies?

Separating emotions isn’t always necessary, but yes, cooler heads prevail. The emotion comes from outrage over lies and irresponsibility. However, lets look at logic for a moment without emotion…it’s a free country, it’s my body, it’s a persons right to take care of their body and in doing so, choosing willfully what to put in it.

So emotions or not, I’ll gladly side with the so called portrayed wacky activists and be able to sleep at night with a clear conscience. Choose wisely which side you’ll be on…the bigger they are, the harder they will fall.

Here are major policy statements by THE most prestigious science organizations in the world. If you buy into Black Helicopter conspiracy theories, you will reject this, but if you care about science, you will engage the science and not continue to promote, without citation to credible sources, the hysteria that GM foods pose any unique dangers:

· American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”

· U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) “[N]o adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.”

· The World Health Organization (WHO) “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”

· European Commission

“[N]o scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.”

· Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) “FAO recognizes that biotechnology provides powerful tools for the sustainable development of agriculture…biotechnology can be of significant assistance in meeting the needs of an expanding and increasingly urbanized population in the next millennium.”

Intriguingly, the most powerful statement comes out of Germany, which like much of Continental Europe is a hotbed of anti-biotech sentiment. As in every one of those industrialized counties where the population has been whipped into a frenzy by advocacy groups and scare reports, and politicians have issued tough restrictions or in some cases bans on biotech crops, the scientists base their views on the empirical evidence—actual data.

According to the Union of the German Academies of Science and Humanities: “Foods from approved GM crops are safe for humans and animals; Approved GM crops do not pose environmental hazards; Small farmers, not just large corporations, profit from the adoption of GM crops, so contributing to the alleviation of poverty; GM crops pose no irresolvable conflict with organic farming; GM crops can make a major contribution to the quantity and quality of food in the world; Freedom of choice should apply to all farmers and consumers, not just to some of them”

Your first PR problem is that the climate change denialist folks have shown that corporate astroturfers have no qualms about just making shit up, including sciency sounding shit, so informed consumers know to view corporate public relations with a healthy skepticism. But the issue isn’t the quality of anti-GMO research per se. The issue is that the GMO crops haven’t been convincingly demonstrated to be safe by objective research. And the safety of GMO crops that haven’t been developed yet obviously can’t be guaranteed. From the consumer’s point of view, what Montsanto is saying is this: We’ve got this spiffy (and profitable) new set of products that we want you to buy. But we know that many of you don’t want to buy them. So, we will sell it without labels, so you don’t know if you’re buying it or not. Obviously, if this stuff isn’t labelled, public health officials will have a really hard time connecting any future health problems to the GMO cause. That’s the other motivation for spending so much money to avoid labeling. And Montsanto, despite the reassurances of its flaks, must not be all that sure of the safety of its products. If they were, they wouldn’t have lobbied to sneak the “Montsanto Protection Act” into the farm bill, relieving them of liability for future medical problems caused by GMO. If GMO is so safe and wonderful, label the stuff. In a free market and a free country, consumers have a right to know what they’re buying. Montsanto’s campaign against labeling is totalitarian in impulse.